Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't claim to know much about FAA procedure for approving flight of new aircraft, but I think it's safe to assume that whatever testing, regulation, other processes they have in place that allowed for this type of grave error to fly is either insufficient or broken.

I agree this doesn't exactly equate to the conclusion drawn about republicans, but it does further expose that there is no limit to generating partisan/political quotes where they don't belong.

Regardless of who you side with, note that many on the congressional investigative team took contributions from Boeing and tried to steer blame to individual pilots/airlines (including Sam Graves and some democrats).

Source: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/blaming-dead...




>" I don't claim to know much about FAA procedure for approving flight of new aircraft, but I think it's safe to assume that whatever testing, regulation, other processes they have in place that allowed for this type of grave error to fly is either insufficient or broken."

That's quite the assumption. I don't even know what 'broken' would mean for a certification process as byzantine as the one used by the FAA. I think you should either be more specific, or take the time to learn a bit about the systems, processes, and failure modes of complex multi-stakeholder processes.


Let's make this easy, a fully FAA compliant aircraft fell from the sky, twice. Therefore, the certification process is broken, as in it does not actually work at judging the airworthiness of a new jet due the reason in the previous sentence.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: